1. : food stamp recipients -- increasing from 33 million people in 2009 to 43 million in 2012 -- as a sign that poverty had skyrocketed under President Obama. But a new study suggests that the reason there has been such an increase in food stamp recipients during the last four years is even more pernicious.

2. George Mason University's David Armor and Sonia Sousa, argue that the food stamp program can no longer be regarded as an anti-poverty program because nearly half of its recipients are above the poverty line, many of them substantially so.

a. other anti-poverty programs have an even higher percentage of the non-poor among their recipients.

3. The study examined spending over the last thirty years for federal anti-poverty programs providing nutrition, health care, housing and cash assistance for the supposed poor. They show that the explosion in costs for these programs has little to do with the higher numbers of Americans who have fallen into poverty since the Great Recession

4. Spending for poverty programs received a big boost during the Bush years, a $100 billion increase over eight years. But the Obama spending spree dwarfed those increases.In his first two years in office, President Obama increased such spending by $150 billion, some of it in the 2009 stimulus package.

5. The portion of the federal budget now attributable to fighting the "war on poverty" is now roughly equal to the entire defense budget ($666 billion compared to $693 billion), slightly less than spending on Social Security ($700 billion), but more than on Medicare ($551 billion).

a. Taken together, federal spending on income transfers and other social benefits are now 2.76 times greater than spending for national defense.

6. The major changes occurred when the government allowed more lenient standards for eligibility for benefits. Most of these programs were originally designed to help those who lived below the official poverty line, which in 2011 was $11,702 for a single person and $22,811 for a family of four. But over the years, the federal government has lowered the threshold so that even those earning twice the income considered below poverty still qualify.

a. in several states, a family of four with income of over $45,000 a year is eligible to receive benefits.

7. over half of the recipients of food stamps (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), have income above the poverty line.

a. Of the 40.3 million receiving food stamps in 2010 (the last year for which detailed figures are available), 20.4 were above the poverty cut-off. Of these, a whopping 8 million have income twice the poverty level.

8. the non-poor receive more benefits than food stamps. Those living at 133-200 percent or more of the poverty level also constitute the greatest number of beneficiaries of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

a. Even Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which gives cash benefits to those supposedly in need, now supports those whose incomes are twice the official poverty definition; indeed 40 percent of TANF funds go to families whose incomes are more than 200 percent of poverty.

9. The policy implications of these findings are enormous. What once were programs to provide a safety net for the truly poor are now programs to boost the living standards of the lower middle class.

This from one of my previous posts:
1. Re-examine the welfare solution for poverty. The very first step is to reinstitute the real definition of poverty. It is no home-no heat- no food. Thats poverty.

1. : food stamp recipients -- increasing from 33 million people in 2009 to 43 million in 2012 -- as a sign that poverty had skyrocketed under President Obama. But a new study suggests that the reason there has been such an increase in food stamp recipients during the last four years is even more pernicious.

2. George Mason University's David Armor and Sonia Sousa, argue that the food stamp program can no longer be regarded as an anti-poverty program because nearly half of its recipients are above the poverty line, many of them substantially so.

a. other anti-poverty programs have an even higher percentage of the non-poor among their recipients.

3. The study examined spending over the last thirty years for federal anti-poverty programs providing nutrition, health care, housing and cash assistance for the supposed poor. They show that the explosion in costs for these programs has little to do with the higher numbers of Americans who have fallen into poverty since the Great Recession

4. Spending for poverty programs received a big boost during the Bush years, a $100 billion increase over eight years. But the Obama spending spree dwarfed those increases.In his first two years in office, President Obama increased such spending by $150 billion, some of it in the 2009 stimulus package.

5. The portion of the federal budget now attributable to fighting the "war on poverty" is now roughly equal to the entire defense budget ($666 billion compared to $693 billion), slightly less than spending on Social Security ($700 billion), but more than on Medicare ($551 billion).

a. Taken together, federal spending on income transfers and other social benefits are now 2.76 times greater than spending for national defense.

6. The major changes occurred when the government allowed more lenient standards for eligibility for benefits. Most of these programs were originally designed to help those who lived below the official poverty line, which in 2011 was $11,702 for a single person and $22,811 for a family of four. But over the years, the federal government has lowered the threshold so that even those earning twice the income considered below poverty still qualify.

a. in several states, a family of four with income of over $45,000 a year is eligible to receive benefits.

7. over half of the recipients of food stamps (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), have income above the poverty line.

a. Of the 40.3 million receiving food stamps in 2010 (the last year for which detailed figures are available), 20.4 were above the poverty cut-off. Of these, a whopping 8 million have income twice the poverty level.

8. the non-poor receive more benefits than food stamps. Those living at 133-200 percent or more of the poverty level also constitute the greatest number of beneficiaries of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

a. Even Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which gives cash benefits to those supposedly in need, now supports those whose incomes are twice the official poverty definition; indeed 40 percent of TANF funds go to families whose incomes are more than 200 percent of poverty.

9. The policy implications of these findings are enormous. What once were programs to provide a safety net for the truly poor are now programs to boost the living standards of the lower middle class.

This from one of my previous posts:
1. Re-examine the welfare solution for poverty. The very first step is to reinstitute the real definition of poverty. It is no home-no heat- no food. Thats poverty.

Did any families whose income exceeded the poverty line ever receive government assistance before Obama became President?

Why do some states permit families with incomes above the poverty line to receive benefits while others do not?

How much does it cost a family of four to live in New Jersey?

Why do you consider a study that supports your fucked up point of view to be proof of anything?

Click to expand...

Yes, families whose income exceeds the poverty line have been eligible to receive goverment assistance... the standard for foodstamps is 185 percent of the federal poverty level. If your gross income is less than that, you are potentially elibible for foodstamps. What has changed dramatically over the last 5 years are the requirements....lack of citizenship documentation is no longer good cause to withhold benefits. And the push to advertise foodstamp eligibility ad reach and enroll those who have not previously applied has resulted in huge increases in foodstamp eligibility.

Medical is different from state to state because medical is largely funded by the states. Foodstamps are a federal program. TANF is funded by both states and feds, so those programs have different requirements and varying availability from state to state.

I have no idea how the New Jersey cost of living for 4 people is pertinent to anything.

1. : food stamp recipients -- increasing from 33 million people in 2009 to 43 million in 2012 -- as a sign that poverty had skyrocketed under President Obama. But a new study suggests that the reason there has been such an increase in food stamp recipients during the last four years is even more pernicious.

2. George Mason University's David Armor and Sonia Sousa, argue that the food stamp program can no longer be regarded as an anti-poverty program because nearly half of its recipients are above the poverty line, many of them substantially so.

a. other anti-poverty programs have an even higher percentage of the non-poor among their recipients.

3. The study examined spending over the last thirty years for federal anti-poverty programs providing nutrition, health care, housing and cash assistance for the supposed poor. They show that the explosion in costs for these programs has little to do with the higher numbers of Americans who have fallen into poverty since the Great Recession

4. Spending for poverty programs received a big boost during the Bush years, a $100 billion increase over eight years. But the Obama spending spree dwarfed those increases.In his first two years in office, President Obama increased such spending by $150 billion, some of it in the 2009 stimulus package.

5. The portion of the federal budget now attributable to fighting the "war on poverty" is now roughly equal to the entire defense budget ($666 billion compared to $693 billion), slightly less than spending on Social Security ($700 billion), but more than on Medicare ($551 billion).

a. Taken together, federal spending on income transfers and other social benefits are now 2.76 times greater than spending for national defense.

6. The major changes occurred when the government allowed more lenient standards for eligibility for benefits. Most of these programs were originally designed to help those who lived below the official poverty line, which in 2011 was $11,702 for a single person and $22,811 for a family of four. But over the years, the federal government has lowered the threshold so that even those earning twice the income considered below poverty still qualify.

a. in several states, a family of four with income of over $45,000 a year is eligible to receive benefits.

7. over half of the recipients of food stamps (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), have income above the poverty line.

a. Of the 40.3 million receiving food stamps in 2010 (the last year for which detailed figures are available), 20.4 were above the poverty cut-off. Of these, a whopping 8 million have income twice the poverty level.

8. the non-poor receive more benefits than food stamps. Those living at 133-200 percent or more of the poverty level also constitute the greatest number of beneficiaries of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

a. Even Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which gives cash benefits to those supposedly in need, now supports those whose incomes are twice the official poverty definition; indeed 40 percent of TANF funds go to families whose incomes are more than 200 percent of poverty.

9. The policy implications of these findings are enormous. What once were programs to provide a safety net for the truly poor are now programs to boost the living standards of the lower middle class.

This from one of my previous posts:
1. Re-examine the welfare solution for poverty. The very first step is to reinstitute the real definition of poverty. It is no home-no heat- no food. Thats poverty.

Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them. George Orwell

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

"Elderly people who are terminally ill have a ''duty to die and get out of the way'' instead of trying to prolong their lives by artificial means, [Democrat]Gov. Richard D. Lamm of Colorado said Tuesday. People who die without having life artificially extended are similar to ''leaves falling off a tree and forming humus for the other plants to grow up,'' the [Democrat] Governor told a meeting of the Colorado Health Lawyers Association at St. Joseph's Hospital. ''You've got a duty to die and get out of the way,'' said the 48-year-old [Democrat]Governor. ''Let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.''GOV. LAMM ASSERTS ELDERLY, IF VERY ILL, HAVE 'DUTY TO DIE' - NYTimes.com

You know, I always hear howls of protest and indignation from the 'nuts around here when I point out that all conservative economic policy is designed to increase the gap between rich and poor in this country.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!